Friday 3 December 2021

United Arab Emirates signs record contract for 80 Rafale fighters

French manufacturer Dassault signed today the biggest contract in its history, 80 Rafale fighters in the F4 variant with United Arab Emirates (UAE). Deliveries will take place between 2027 and 2031.

The total cost will be 16 billion €:

- 14 billion for the fighters
- 2 billion for an armament package that includes MICA NG and cruise missiles Black Saheen, a local variant of the MBDA SCALP

UAE becomes the sixth foreign operator after Egypt (54), Qatar (24), India (36), Greece (18) and Croatia (12). With this contract, the production line is guaranteed for years, and France will have more flexibility when ordering the next tranches. To put the 16 billion € into context, the cost of the Rafale program from 1989 to 2018 was 28.438 billion €, including operations and maintenance.

Rafale (Dassault).

Statement by Dasssault.



The F4 variant is currently being developed, and incorporates improvement in the AESA radar and SPECTRA system. It has also received a Scorpion helmet, better communications and new weapons.

References:

- https://www.dassault-aviation.com/en/
http://www.opex360.com/
https://www.lefigaro.fr/economie
https://www.latribune.fr/entreprises-finance

Thursday 18 November 2021

Indonesia acquires two transport aircraft Airbus A400Ms

Airbus has anounced the sale of 2 A400Ms to Indonesia with an option for for 4 more; below is the official press release from the company:

Dubai, 18 November 2021 – The Indonesia Ministry of Defence has placed an order for two Airbus A400M aircraft in multirole tanker and transport configuration.

The contract, which will become effective in 2022, will bring the total number of A400M operators to ten nations. The agreement includes a complete maintenance and training support package. A Letter of Intent was also signed for the future acquisition of four additional A400M aircraft.

...

“The A400M is a truly multi-role platform and will greatly enhance the Indonesian Air Force’s tactical air-to-air capabilities. This aircraft will play a key role in other key missions including paratrooping and heavy cargo transportation. We are also looking at additional A400M acquisition in the near term, with future A400M developments such as firefighting an important capability we are exploring jointly with Airbus. The A400M will become a national asset and the cornerstone for Human Assistance and Disaster Response missions, beyond its tactical and air-to-air capabilities,” said Prabowo Subianto, Minister of Defence of the Republic of Indonesia.

Indonesian A400M concept (Airbus).


Indonesia had been negotiating the acquisition at least since 2016. In the last update it was stated that the Ministry of Defence wanted to have more autonomy on CN235 production as an offset.

References:

https://www.airbus.com

Tuesday 16 November 2021

Interview with an US Army M48A5/M60A1 veteran tanker

A few days ago an US Army veteran kindly accepted an invitation for an interview. B. served in M48A5 and M60A1 tanks in the late 1970s and early 1980s, and deployed in Europe as part of a REFORGER exercise. Before the interview starts I would like to thank him for his time.

1. Hello B., many thanks for accepting an interview for alejandro-8.blogspot.com. Could you provide us an overview of your career in the US Army?

I received a commission as a Second Lieutenant from ROTC University of Puerto Rico in June 1976.  I attended Armor Officer Basic Course at Fort Knox, Kentucky and continued on to serve in two different tank battalions, plus in various other units and staff and retired in 2003.  

2. What do you think were the strong and weak points of the Patton tanks you used (M48A5 and M60A1)?  

At the time I served on the M48A5 and the M60A1 I thought they were comfortable and roomy inside.  I thought compared to the Soviet design we had the better tank.  The M48A5 was a little smaller.  We called the M48 “Patton” tank and the M60A1 was just an “M60” and we did not consider it a Patton. 

1) A Company, 3rd Battalion, 77th Armor in formation at Fort Polk, Louisiana 1980.


The weak point was that they were taller and a bigger target than the Soviet models, but then we could go into hull defilade easier than the shorter enemy tank.  Also they were not that fast getting up to 30 mph on a road.  They were heavily armoured and could not make the speed of the newer M-1 that replaced them.  

3. When training, at was the typical distance to the objective and speed of the tank when you fired? And the longest distance at which you ever fired?


The Army installation I trained were large and during war games we had large maneuver areas.  I remember Fort Polk driving in long convoys to get to the field location, perhaps 50 miles or more along dusty tank trails.  At Fort Drum it was about the same in snow and ice sometimes.  We could not go that fast the best we could do was 30 mph.  Firing was only during gunnery and I don’t remember the ranges we fired but I know the main gun can fire out to about 4 kilometers.  If I remember right the 105mm gun could shoot even further.   

4. How was the firing at night conducted? Did you use flares for battlefield illumination? IR projector? What was the effective distance at which you could fire?  

Night time gunnery was a challenge.  We did use flares but also we had infa red and searchlights. A searchlight tank would illuminate the target for a second, we would fire and the searchlight would turn off.  Then another tank on the line with a searchlight would illuminate the target for a second, we would engage and the light would turn off. Again I don’t remember the range that we fired at.  I do remember one night fire at the range where I hit the target and it exploded. It appeared someone had put some fuel in the hulk and it exploded.  
 
5. What was the typical ammunition configuration load (% APDS/AP/HEAT)?  We carried APDS (Sabot), Heat, and HEP but only target practice rounds.  

I don’t remember the configuration but then that would depend on what the command determined for the battle we were entering and expected targets.  Supposedly there was a “Beehive” round full of flechettes that would tear apart massed infantry, but we never fired one.  There also was a Willie Pete (WP) smoke round, which we did not have the opportunity to fire.  The machine guns were the M-85 50 caliber for the tank commander on the M-60A1 and the 7.62 machine gun for the coax (next to the main gun).  The M-48A5 had a 7.62, M-60D machine gun mounted on an Israeli-designed “Urdan” cupola, which was much lower but you had to hang out of the hatch to fire, but you could traverse it 360 degrees.  The Loader also had an M-60D machine gun plus there was the coax 7.62 machine gun.     

6. What was the maximum rate of fire you achieved? How did it change as you went through the different bins?  

We were expected to have another round loaded in about 8 seconds.  Some loaders were even faster.  We never had a competition for speed and I took no note of it and was focused in qualifying my tank crew, meeting the standard, and hitting the targets.  When I took my turn as loader during my basic training it was hard to load that heavy round, about 40 pounds and I had a healthy respect for a good loader.  

7. Did you prepare for any NBC scenarios? How did it affect crews performance?
 

We trained in NBC gear but it was extremely uncomfortable and I don’t remember being required to shoot and hit targets with all that gear on.  The protective gear automatically reduced everyone’s performance.  It made you overheat and wearing it in summer was out of the question.  The mask we wore was hooked up to the tank ventilation system and it gave you a gentle breeze on your face when turned on making it more bearable.  It was hard to use sites with the mask on.

8. You served during the Cold War, and the US Army played a critical role in NATO. Did you train with crews from other countries? What were your impressions on training/equipment? Did you notice any difference in comparison to US Army?  

Never had the opportunity to serve with crews from other countries.

9. The Patton family of tanks is considered an ideal tank for conscripts because of its reliability and ease of use. Would you agree with the statement? How long do you think it took to train a crew?
 

I agree. The tank was reliable and easy to use with training and good maintenance. The problem was depending on the priority of the unit you were assigned to, you did not always get the parts you needed quickly. With poor maintenance you had breakdowns, you had to follow the schedule for maintenance. Training a good crew would take a few months of intensive training.

2) With my M-48A5 at Fort Drum, NY 1980.  We had to warm up the engines regularly to stop them from freezing up.


Our problem was as soon as we had a good crew trained, someone was transferred to another unit or left the Army. We were CONSTANTLY training our crews and rarely reached peak performance because of personnel turnover. I complained about this serious issue but nothing could be done about it at the time.  We called it personnel “turbulence” and the problem was NEVER solved. I hope they figured out a way to keep crews together better by now.  

10. Did you ever participate in REFORGER exercises? If so, can you comment on them?
 

Yes I was on REFORGER 1978. It was great training and I think back about it with fondness although it was a lot of hard work and I suffered greatly from the cold living in field conditions in a tent.  My unit deployed from Fort Polk, Louisiana to Ramstein Germany then picked up our equipment at Pirmasens, Germany and went into war games west of the Fulda area and finished with gunnery at Wildflecken, Germany.  We did an enormous amount of maneuver damage with our tanks and big trucks on the roads, ground, forest, and some buildings. The Germans made a fortune in payments for all the damage we did.  

11. What was the maximum distance you covered in a day? Did the tank need any special maintenance after?  I don’t remember exactly but I think the maximum was about 100 miles.  

We had to refuel every evening.  We had to make operator maintenance checks constantly, such as during a stop checking the track and at the end of the day. You kept an eye on the gages for any unusual readings and you checked your dipsticks of oil and transmission fluid.  The maintenance schedule of the tank operator manual gave specific instructions of what to check and when to lubricate various components on the tank.

12. Did you find operating the M48/60 in high/low temperatures challenging?
 
Yes. We trained at Fort Drum, New York during the winter and that is when I served on the M-48A5. The temperature dipped below zero and the wind chill was minus 50 below.  We had to regularly crank up the engine every few hours or the engine would freeze up and not start at all. We had to wear gloves all the time on the tank or your skin would freeze to the tank. We could NOT shut the hatches with the heater on and had to keep them open. Closing the hatch results in carbon monoxide poisoning and death. During breaks while moving around we would knock the ice off the track and road wheels.

My moustache constantly froze with icicles so I would duck inside the turret break them off warm up for a few seconds than pop back up to resume my duties. On icy tank trails you had to be careful and maintain 100 meter distance between tanks. Once my tank slid back on an icy hill, but since we maintained our distance, I did not crash into the tank behind me. I tried again and the same thing happened. Half way up the hill the tracks could not grip and we slide down the hill again.

I told the driver to get off the trail and drive through the fresh snow next to the trail. This worked and the rest of my platoon followed my example.  You had to be careful driving cross country and keep an eye out for frozen streams.  I could tell by the look of the terrain and the trees on the edge.  We had one Lieutenant sink his tank up the turret in ice water and sinking into a frozen stream.  We joked and called him Admiral after that.  It took several recover vehicles, M-88s, to pull that tank out and the engine was totally destroyed by the ice water.  Fortunately, no one was hurt.

3) I am driving the M-60A1.


Forgot to answer your question on operating the M60A1 in high temperature.  You had to wear your leather gloves or burn your hand on the tank.  It was miserable and you sweat alot.  We trained at night to avoid the daytime heat but it did not work.  At night it was still hot plus I could not sleep much in the day.  After four days we were totally exhausted.  Hope this answers your question.  I do not know how long I could have continued in those heat conditions beyond four days, when the commander brought us back into garrison to rest.  No air conditioner in the tank.

13. Did you experience any reliability issues with the M60 diesel engine? 

No. We had good mechanics. It all depends on budgets and priority of the unit.  US Army units in Europe had the highest priority and got the best and fastest of everything.  Back in the states we did not have high priority and budgets so sometimes it took longer for repair and maintenance. The Marines always seem to have low budgets and older equipment than we did.

14. In the 70/80s Warsaw Pact had deployed a very large number of tanks in Eastern Europe. Did you have access to intelligence (periodicals, reports, actual equipment via Israel)?

We had training on Soviet doctrine and tactics.  We knew they had a lot of tanks but that ours were better.  We had some intelligence briefings and manuals of how to fight them.  It was all theory and thank God we never had to actually fight them because I don’t know if I would have survived it.  Did not have any opportunity to actually see Soviet equipment, just pictures.

15. Did the Soviet Army have any equipment that caught you eye (T-64/72/80, AT missiles?)

I had no concern with their tanks except they had masses of them.  We were very concerned with the Soviet “Sagger” Anti-tank missile and the “Hind” attack helicopter.  

16. Patton class tanks served for a very long time. One of the reasons was that projects like MBT-70 were canceled. Did you get the impression the M60 was getting long in the tooth as USSR T-64/72/80?  

My last assignment with tanks was in 1980, so not enough time had gone by, but the M60 was constantly being upgraded and with a good crew could hold its own against the Soviet tanks.  The Kuwait war, “Operation Desert Storm” 1991 was an example where the Marines used M-60s and still annihilated the Iraqi Soviet tanks.  The key was training, good tactics, leadership and good maintenance.

4) In the tank commander position of my M-48A5 tank at Fort Drum, New York 1980.


17. Recently designed tanks in Europe and Asia have included autoloaders. What is your opinion on these devices?  

Don’t trust autoloaders since our human loaders could reload faster than the auto loaders during my time in tanks.  It is a machine and it can break down and unless there is a backup, you have to abandon the tank if the autoloader fails.

18. In the 1990s the Patton family was quickly retired from the US Army following the end of the Cold War. Do you think it was a good decision or perhaps they could have served longer?  

The M-1 tank is so much more superior to the Patton tank, I can understand why we completely replaced them.  In particular the armor of the M-1 is almost impregnable.  The M-1 is also faster.  I have seen Turkish M-60 tanks blown up easily by the new anti tank missiles.  The armor of the M-60 is obsolete and hanging reactive armor on the original design just added more weight and reduces performance.  The M-60 is still serving overseas in some Armies but if I had to go into combat I want the best tank possible to survive.    

19. Is there any anecdote you would like to share before we finish the interview?

I want to share one funny searchlight story, which you can add.  We were in a war game at night and my tank platoon was suppose to be attacked by an infantry company.  We had no night vision devices back then.  My platoon sergeant requested permission to use the search light.  I gave permission but told him to not tell anyone.  He shot out a beam for a second illuminating the valley ahead of us.  You could see the entire infantry company with their arms held over their eyes.  In that second the entire infantry company was blinded.  There were angry voices on the radio demanding to know who did that.  I kept my mouth shut.  The commander was furious.  The umpires had to cancel the battle that night and we had a good nights sleep :-D

Other interviews:

- Interview with a former British artilleryman and veteran of the Gulf War
- Former M60 tanker in the Army of Austria
- Former Chieftain crew member
- Former Chieftain gunner
- AMX30 commander of the Army of France
- NCO of the Army of Serbia 
- Former crew member of Challenger 2
Former Leclerc commander
T-72 driver in Czech Army  
- US Army M60 tank crewmman
- Interview with D., former US Army tanker with experience in the M60 and M1 Abrams
- Interview with Stefan Kotsch, former NVA/Bundeswehr tanker  

More interviews can be found in the Spanish version of the blog (link), including with veterans of Leo 2, AMX30, M48/60 and REME.

I am always looking for more veterans, active members or people related with the defence industry to accept interviews. If you enjoyed reading the material and would be happy to accept an anonimous interview you can get in contact with me. My e-mail can be found in this link at the heading. Otherwise leave a message in the comment sections.

Sunday 14 November 2021

United Arab Emirated acquires 2 more A330MRTT

Dubai Airshow has kicked off with new contracts being anounced. UAE Air Force has signed for 2 Airbus A330 Multirole Tanker Transport (MRTT) aircraft increasing the country’s MRTT fleet up to five aircraft.

Image


The contract is thought to be 670 million $ and includes the upgrade of previously delivered aircraft. Deliveries will start in 2024.

References:

- https://twitter.com/Rotorfocus/
- https://www.airbus.com/

Monday 1 November 2021

Interview with a former British artilleryman and veteran of the Gulf War

A former artilleryman who served in the British Army has accepted an interview for the blog. I, joined the Armed Forces at 17, serving in Germany and taking part in the Gulf War.

1. Hello I., thank you for accepting the interview. Could you give us a bit of an introduction?

At the age of 17 I joined the Royal Regt of Artillery 1988 to 1992. I first trained on the L118 105 mm light gun, after basic training I was then posted to 49 Field Regt Field Artillery in Germany Lippstadt. Here I was retrained on the M109, 155 mm SP gun Before serving in the First Gulf War I had done a united nation tour in Cyprus. In 1992 I left Royal Artillery and joined an infantry unit till 2014.

2. What would you consider are the strong and weak points of the L118 Light Gun you used?

My view from being on the M109 its strong points are its fire power and the gun is only as good as it well trained disciplined gun crew and commander. Weaknesses I’d say its aluminium armour and if the engine breaks down you are stuck in location which makes you a static target

3. What is the typical distance to target and rate of fire when you train?

As for typical distance of target it could be any as long as the target is with in our firing  range, from head on target to 21km or 30 km. We trained for all eventualities. As for rate of fire again id say 4 rounds per min again depends on your crew or if you use the automatic rammer, on my crew our loader would ram the shell with his fist along with pure aggression and adrenalin as he was a big lad. I am sure today with health and safety might not happen.

4. When it came to target designation, what was the most common approach to get the data (reconnaissance aircraft, specialised vehicles, forward artillery observers)?

Our most common target indicator was given by the FOO, forward observation officer. They could be on foot or by reconnaissance vehicle, again depends on enemy threat and their location. They would send their info by radio to our (CP) command post which the CP would relay to us by giving a fire order.

5. Did you train/prepare in any specific way before being deployed to Saudi Arabia?

We trained in Canada Alberta, before being deployed to Saudi Arabia, all British units are continuously training as not be caught off guard, hence we can  deploy at a moment notice anywhere in the world.

6. Can you comment on the Iraqi Army? Did you examine any equipment? What was your impression on it and its training?

As for the Iraqi army we were going up against the Republican guard force, we were briefed up that they were  professional soldiers, well trained better equipped and moral was high. What i saw and came across were soldiers surrendering left right and centre, some had not eaten or had water in days. So my first impressions were shit these guys were  broken soldiers and not all that cracked up to be. Their equipment was out dated and outclassed. I never saw their training so cannot comment.

7. When it came to the L118 Light Gun, what do you think were the main conclusions following war against Iraq?

Conclusions on the M109 in gulf war simple, superior fire power and fire planning, along with the support of FH70,MLRS.

8. In recent times artillery has introduced UAVs for target selection/reconnaissance. Did you ever try this concept?

As for the  UAVs I have not worked with them i have friends who still serve they tell me its a good asset as to recognise targets identify  and destroy with more accuracy.

M109 during second day of operation Desert Storm (known as Granby in the UK).

Getting ready to fire.

4th Armoured Division coat of arms.


9. What about more recent conflicts like Donbass, Syria or Nagorno-Karabakh? What was you impressions on the use of artillery in them?

The recent conflicts in Syria, Donbass etc and the use of Arty in built up areas is an over kill especially when they know there are civilians. As history has shown in the past whether  Stalingrad or Monte Casino  all you create is more places for the enemy to hide and attack  or defend once the  fire is over.

10. Do you think towed artillery is still valid (vs self propelled systems)?

I personally think towed Arty is still valid for the simple reason towed guns can be pulled by men or a horse or some sort of vehicle so the mission can have more chance of success.

11. Countries like Ukraine and Russia have reactivated 2S7 Pion 203 mm guns. A few years ago this calibre seemed obsolete when compared to advanced 152/155 mm ammunition. Now it seems that they do have a function. What is your opinion?

My opinion is simple on these guns as they have proved themselves in Afghan War from 79 to 89, then Chechen War all you have to do is upgrade them

12. Have you trained with personnel from other countries? Did you use any of their equipment (artillery)? What were your impressions (training and equipment)?

I trained by other nations but not with them, as being boots on the ground. Even though we were bigger part of the picture, we never saw the artists.

Other interviews:

- Former M60 tanker in the Army of Austria
- Former Chieftain crew member
- Former Chieftain gunner
- AMX30 commander of the Army of France
- NCO of the Army of Serbia 
- Former crew member of Challenger 2
Former Leclerc commander
T-72 driver in Czech Army  
- US Army M60 tank crewmman
- Interview with D., former US Army tanker with experience in the M60 and M1 Abrams
- Interview with Stefan Kotsch, former NVA/Bundeswehr tanker  

More interviews can be found in the Spanish version of the blog (link), including veterans of Leo 2, AMX30, M48/60 and REME.

I am always looking for more veterans, active members or people related with the defence industry to accept interviews. If you enjoyed reading the material and would be happy to accept an anonimous interview you can get in contact with me. My e-mail can be found in this link at the heading. Otherwise leave a message in the comment sections.

Tuesday 19 October 2021

Photo gallery of Russia's S-70 Okhotnik heavy UAV

These are by far the best photos I have seen of Russia's S-70 Okhotnik heavy UAV. The author is Sergey Alexandrov.

This UAV made its first flight in October 2019. The final version will have a 2D nozzle, and will operate in mixed regiments with Su-57s. The cost of one unit together with a command post is approximately 20 million $. Deliveries are expected in 2024.












References

- https://vk.com/milinfolive

Friday 15 October 2021

First photos of Kuwait's EF-2000

The first 2 EF-2000 built for Kuwait Air Force have been seen at Leonardo’s Caselle plant near Turin, Italy. in 2016 this country signed a contract for 28 (22 single seat and 6 twin seaters) for  €7.957 billion ($9.062 billion). The variant is considered the most advanced, being Tranche 3 and equipped with a Mk 0 AESA radar.







Eurofighter has had a bumpy road before deliveries. Kuwait's parlament decided to investigate the contract because the cost was judged to be too high, and there were delays due to radar integration and covid.

References:

- Photos by Alessandro Maggia
- https://twitter.com/CiroNappi6/

Friday 1 October 2021

Interview with a former M60 tanker in the Army of Austria

A former M60 tanker in the Army of Austria was happy to accept an interview for my blog. L. served in M60 Patton tanks during the early part of his career. In 1991 he was deployed in the frontier with Yugoslavia as this country descended into civil war. Before starting the interview I would like to thank him for his time.

Hello L. Thanks for accepting the interview. Could you provide a brief overview of your career in the Austrian Army?


I was first crewmember (3years) Next tank commander for 10 years. Finally Platoon Leader, 14 years. And now since 11 years operation NCO or in German- Kompanietruppführer. Austrian Language – Kommandogruppenkommandant. With some mission abroad (ALBANIA 1 Mission Group Commander, KOSOVO 3 Missions- Platoon Leader, S3 NCO, Admin ORF Bat, BOSNIA 5 Missions LOT NCO Liaison Obserations Team) and of course some trainings mission in Poland, Germany, Swizerland.

All in all in the end of the year 38 years of service.

You served in a M60 Patton. What was your impression of the vehicle, and the strong/weak points?          

Was in service with a M60A3. In the first years (early 90) we are quite satisfied with the performance. Including the service in the year 1991 (protection border Yugoslavia). The last few years (until 1989- end of service of the M60 in Austria) we have some live fire test with T-72 from the DDR Army. And there we found out with our APDS we disrupt the front of the T72 first time at a distance of round 500m . So at least we are lucky as we change tank to Leopard.
 
When training, at was the typical distance to the objective and speed of the tank when you fired? And the longest distance at which you ever fired?

Distance was from 500m up to 2000m. in training. At this time we train only in Austria and the competition was only among the 3 armoured battalion’s ( PzB10- terminated 2005, PzB14, PzB33- terminated 2015 now a Infantry battalion). There are no international contact in the 80` and 90`. The longest distance we fired with a HEP (high explosive plastic) about 4000m (only a few times, the target was the dimension of a infantry platoon, for testing). Speed was for us this time also ok. Max speed of the tank was 35/40 Mph. For shooting it was 20 Mph (flat plain) 15Mph cross country ( you have to work together with the driver. Not use the breakes or to steer when you are to fire the main gun.

How was the night firing conducted? Did you use flares for battlefield illumination?
 
Only when we work together with our artillery (was very rare at this time)

At what sort of ranges could you fire with the IR projector?

Only the gunner had a low-light amplifier. And only experienced gunner could fire at a maximum distance of 1000m. And the night has to be bright (full moon, snow, fire…). We also use on regular basis floodlight ( every tank has one mounted on the maingun with IR and white light). For this we have special instruction how to use it. Normall distance about 800m in the night.

In terms of maintenance, was there any component or system that was more delicate? Were there any issues with the supply chain?

The motor was very stable. We could “repair” many little damages with crew resources. (starter unit, air filter…). The armoured tower also not so sensitive like the tanks today are. Laser was a little bit awkward to handle ( only a little number of measurement until out of order.

What was the typical ammunition configuration load (% APDS/HESH/Smoke)? Did you have specific rounds for certain targets (APFSDS for T-64/72/80)?

63 rounds for main gun 105mm, 800 rounds 12,7mm, 4000 rounds 7,62mm total load.

Main gun: 3 WP- White Phosphor  12 HEP- High Explosive Plastic, 18 HEAT – High Explosive Anti Tank (shaped charge), and in the first years 30 APDS Armor Piercing Discarding Sabot and later instead of this 30 APFSDS Armor Piercing Finn Stabilised Discarding Sabot.

Main battle tanks APFSDS.
Armored personal carrier HEAT (long distance) or HEP.
Infantry (platoon or coy) short distance MG (7,62mm/ 12,7mm) or HEP. Long distance HEP.
Unarmored vehicle also short distance MG (7,62mm/ 12,7mm) or HEP. Long distance HEP
Helicopter only if it run square to our tank APFSDS

What was the maximum distance you covered in a day during deployments or exercises? Was the mobility suitable for Austrian terrain? Did the tank cope well or needed extra maintenance?


Max distance was as I remember so round about 250 km. This mainly on regular roads. Cross country about 150 km a day. For Austrian Armed Forces it was quite OK. During time of cold war we have the system of “Raumverteidigung” (defence positions along the main routes from east to west and in Tirol from north to south). And the armored bataillon was designated for counter attack operations to destroy the enemy heavy armored forces. For the M60 it was no bigger problem. The only thing needed maintenance for the chain.

The M60 is one of the largest (and most comfortable) tanks. Do you think it was worth it (it was also a larger target)?

As we used it that was not a question for the crews. But we train as long as possible not to go in open areas ( if possible go along the forest edge) and try take up position with hull down. We had some worries about the cupola for the commander with the Cal 50 MG ( MG 85). It was only a weight of about 800 kg. and if there would be a direct hit it would flew away with the commander as we heard from the IDF.

The M19 commander cupola is one element which has not proved popular, and some operators removed it. What do you think?

As I wrote in the last question. But the Austrian Armed Forces do not want to remove the copula. So we train with it. But many of the tank commander thinking about to throw it of.

You served in an evolving era. The threat in the late 80s early 90s was a conventional conflict in Central Europe. It then moved on to fight against terrorism. How did this affect the training you did?

For tankers first hand not so much changed. But we start to train at this time to fight in build up areas.(short distance shooting, work together with infantry . protection . CRC technics, OP, Checkpoints …)

Did you practice NBC scenarios? What was the procedure?

We trained this on regular base. The M60 has a NBC filter system. But it worked only when the crew put on the NBC mask and connect it with the filter system, with e tube for every member. Because the tank was not tightly closed for gas.

Did you have the opportunity to train with other Armies? What were your impressions? Did you like/dislike any specific equipment?

Until the late 80 we do not train with other armies. Only when we are on mission abroad (Golan hights Cypern). So only peacekeeping missions and technics, we train at this time.

By the 1980s Israel had used the M60 Patton in combat. Did you get any feedback on its performance or changes applied to variants?

The information was not from the official system. We get it from articles from other countries. For instance, the problems with the cupola, effects ammo, supply….

In 1991 you were deployed for 3 weeks in the frontier with Yugoslavia. Could you share your experience? Did you get any intelligence on Yugoslav Army equipment?

The armored bataillon 14 was deployed to the border with only one coy. Most of the crew members were NCO`s and no conscripts. We put the tank commanders of one platoon in one tank together. So mostly the platoon leader was the commander and the gunner loader and driver are the three tank commanders.
The experience at this time, as I remember was very good. We are together a long time before this deployment, so we know each other and work very good together. We do each day oner “Demo Fahrt” a kind of patrol along the border. A show of force. And we have reconnoitred some hull down positions near the border for defence operations. Most of the information’s we get on normal TV program. Less information from our intelligence.

In the 1990s Austria had access to Soviet equipment like the T-72 tank. Did you have the chance to familiarise yourself with it? What was your impression?

The soviet equipment Austria bought was at first hand to test the effect of our ammo (APFSDS, HEAT..). We have the possibility to get in contact with the soviet tanks. An our impression was that the equipment was not so “technical” but very stabile when you have to use it.

The testing of the ammo with the M60 was for me very sobering. We started at 1200m target front- no disruption. Next was 1000m. Then 800m. And at least we get the first hit with an effect at about 500m.
We does this test in the middle of the 80` and from this time on the Austrian Armed Forces try to replace the M60 or to upgrade it in some ways. At least it ended with the buy of the Leopard2A4 from the Netherlands.

What is your opinion on the Israel upgrades (Magach - also sold to Turkey as M60T)?


For me it looks good. But for me it mostly depends what is the possible enemy in your region. And what are you using the tank for.Is your enemy better equipped than your own tanks.

Turkey has used M60s in Syria. What do you think of the way they are being used?
 
As I read and heared it was the same problem with the Leo`s ( the lost also some of them). Stay for long in the same position (2or more days). On modern battlefield are 5 up to 10 minute sometimes to long (artillery) No protection of mechanised infantry. And the crews are for my opinion not so well trained as the have to be.

Newer models of tanks have incorporated turbines and automatic loaders. What is your opinion of them?

May be I am old fashioned but the loader of our Leo´s can do their work in about 4/ 5 seconds. The problem of a jam is minimal with a human loader. And for me also very important, you have a forth crew member for all the work ( ammo loading, guard the tank, reparation of running gear….). I personally saw a problem with an autoloader (Leclerc) in SETEC 2017. One hatch was not 100% tight. So the autoloader say NO. and the one tank could not fire in the competition at this moment with this small problem. Would not happen with a human loader.

When it comes to turbines, I think you have some benefit ( high power with low weight) and some handicap ( Noise, high consumption of fuel, not from the first moment when you start the engine full power). So you have to be familiar with your tank and you get the best out of it.

What about the Armata concept, in which the crew is placed in the chassis?

As crew member it is quite interesting for me. In hull down position very save. Also the defensive hard and soft kill systems. Problem is if some of the electronic does not workas it should.

In the late 1990s the M60s were replaced by Leopard 2A4. Do you think it was a good decision? Could the M60s have carried on with an upgrade?

Like I say a few questions before. Depends on the possible enemy. And in the neighbourhood of Austria the equipment is “too good” for the M60 (105mm,stabilisation, speed…). At least the Leopard2A4 is to old and has to be upgraded in near future, hopefully.

Is there any anecdote you would like to share before we finish the interview?

The only thing to share is may be. All equipment is only as good as the crew is trained.

The Austrian tank crews at the SETC  (2017 1st, 2018 3rd) achieved it with the oldest version of the Leo in the competition. Only the penetrating power was not possible to test.

Other interviews:

- Interview with a former Chieftain crew member
- Interview with a former Chieftain gunner
- Interview with a former AMX30 commander of the Army of France
Interview with a NCO of the Army of Serbia
Interview with a former crew member of Challenger 2  
- Interview with a T-72 driver from the Czech Army
- Interview with a former US Army tank crewmman 
- Interview with D., former US Army tanker with experience in the M60 and M1 Abrams
- Interview with a former NVA/Bundeswehr tanker
- Interview with former Marine and writer Kenneth Estes

Thursday 30 September 2021

Germany acquires 5 five P-8A Poseidon maritime patrol aircraft

Boeing has anounced the signing of a contract with the US Navy to supply five P-8A Poseidon maritime patrol aircraft (MPA) to the German Navy. Deliveries will start in 2024 and will be completed in February 2025.

The aircraft will replace the second hand P-3C bought from The Netherlands a few years ago. The cost is 756.6 million $. The aircraft are being procured via the US Foreign Military Sales (FMS) route, which estimated the contract at a much higher value (1,750 million $).

German Navy P-8 concept (Boeing).

The sale is a big success for the US industry against the European one. The German Navy had considered different proposals from European manufacturers (C295 and RAS 72 de Rheinland Air Service in MPA variants), but currently the P-8 Poseidon is the reference. It has flown more than 350,000 hours with 8 operators.

The acquisition casts a shadow of a doubt on the future MPA aircraft to be designed by Germany and France. It was supposed to replace both the German P-3C and French Atlantique 2. As a temporary solution France had offered Germany some Atlantique 2. On the other hand the German government has stated that the P-8 acquisition is a temporary solution, but US press releases state 30 years of operations.

Monday 27 September 2021

India acquires 56 transport aircraft Airbus C295

India has finally signed an agreement for the acquisition of 56 Airbus C295. These aircraft will replace the Indian Air Force (IAF) legacy AVRO fleet.

The first 16 aircraft in ‘fly-away’ condition from its final assembly line in Seville (Spain), while the other 40 will be manufactured and assembled by the Tata Advanced Systems (TASL).

Press release (Airbus).


The contract is the largest signed for the type, representing ~25% of total sales up to date. It will guarantee production for the next few years.

According to Michael Schoellhorn, CEO of Airbus Defence and Space “This contract will support the further development of India’s aerospace ecosystem, bringing investment and 15,000 skilled direct jobs and 10,000 indirect positions over the coming 10 years”.

References:

- https://www.airbus.com/

Wednesday 15 September 2021

60 years since T-62 entry into service

This month Uralvagonzavod (UVZ) celebrates the 60th anniversary of T-62 entry into service. This model, developed as an improvement of T-54/55 while T-64 bugs were ironed out, was far more influential than expected. It was the first tank to use a smoothmore gun.

T-62 (vestnik-rm.ru).


The type is still in service, and not long ago Russia supplied a batch of T-62M to Syria, where it has proved to be a simple and reliable tank. When it was fielded  it was considered 15% superior to T-55 but only required 2% more manufacturing hours, 5855 vs 5723. Despite this small difference, it was far more expensive for export customers, and many chose to stick with T-55 by getting more advanced ammunition.

References:

https://vestnik-rm.ru/

Thursday 19 August 2021

Interview with a former Chieftain crew member

1. Hello C., many thanks for accepting an interview for alejandro-8.blogspot.com. Could you provide us an overview of your career in the British Army?

I joined ‘boy soldiers’ (junior leaders) in August 1967 straight from school aged 15. Following my 2-years of training I passed out to join the 1st Royal Tank Regiment in December 1969 who was then based in Osnabruck, Western Germany, serving on Centurion of Mk.6/2 and Mk.13. In 1971 the British Government cancelled a Libyan order for Chieftain which we subsequently received and which were Mk.3S. In January 1972 I trained and qualified as a Driving and Maintenance Instructor on Chieftain followed immediately by spending 6-months on active service in Northern Ireland – we were the first non-infantry regiment to serve in the province. Whilst serving in N. Ireland I had two life-changing experiences in that my Mother unexpectedly passed away (I was aged 20 and my Mother was just 39) plus I shot someone. When I went to sign for a replacement bullet Major Weekes said ‘well done’ which I found sickening. We returned to Germany where we were told that we would be going back to N. Ireland and then converting to Scorpion. Although N. Ireland was a most enjoyable experience I wanted to remain as an Instructor on Chieftain so instead  I decided to leave the Army in April 1973.

2. What do you think were the strong and weak points of the Chieftain tanks?

It’s a perfect world with hindsight but I will respond with my thoughts and experiences I had at the time I served. I was a very keen student of tank design and development at the time I served plus I also studied Russian armour as it was felt that there was a 50/50 chance that Russia would invade Western Europe. I wasn’t interested in the gunnery side of being a tank crewman instead I concentrated on the protection and mobility aspects. The only weak points of Chieftain for me at the time were the engine and the suspension. The strong points were the armour, the main armament, crew comfort and the semi-automatic gearbox.

3. When training, at was the typical distance to the objective and speed of the tank when you fired? And the longest distance at which you ever fired?

As a gunner I only fired Centurion at Lulworth, in training, and In German, I never fired Chieftain. We did battle runs with Chieftain and fired on the move at all speeds up to the maximum of 30mph. Longest distance ever fired on Cent and Chieftain was up to 1-mile.

4. How was the night firing conducted? Did you use flares for battlefield illumination? At what sort of ranges could you fire with the IR projector?

I enjoyed watching the night firing but never did it as a gunner. The ranges were the same in my experience with ‘starlight’ flares, Image Intensification, Infra-red and searchlight.

5. Early Chieftain variants used a ranging gun to measure distance to objective. Did you ever use it? If so, did you find it effective? Were you concerned about losing sight of tracers or confusing them with others during a battle?


I didn’t use the .50 RMG on Chieftain but I did with Centurion so I hope my response with Cent is helpful. Again the distances were up to a mile but did I find it effective? When you consider that at the time the only alternative was to use the ‘blade vane sight’ which was effectively ‘guessing’ so the RMG saved wasting 105mm rounds. I did experience first-round hits using the RMG hit information but I also experienced having to correct my shot so I would say that for the technology of the period it was fairly effective. I can appreciate the problem in following your own tracer in battle as there would be other factors such as smoke from the battlefield but I think the gunners, and the commanders, concentration would be so high in following your own tracer which would be in your own ‘line of sight’ that I can imagine it wouldn’t be a major problem confusing your tracer with anyone else’s.

6. Chieftain kept a rifled gun while other models introduced smoothbore guns. Do you think it was a good idea?

Yes. Remember, AT THAT TIME Chieftain was the most effective tank main armament in the world

7. Chieftain tanks use a human autoloader and 3 piece ammunition. What was the maximum rate of fire you achieved? How did it change as you used the different ammunition bins?

I apologize as I can’t answer this question not being a Chieftain gunner.

8. British Army made extensive use of HESH ammunition. Can you comment on its characteristics and performance?

Again, I apologize as I can’t answer this question not being a gunner. However, generally speaking HESH was used on ‘soft’ targets and APDS against other tanks. When I served we also had smoke and canister (anti-personnel) rounds.

9. What was the typical ammunition configuration load (% APDS/HESH/Smoke)?

No idea although as drivers we did all the ‘ammo bashing’ and HESH predominated.

10. In terms of maintenance, was there any component or system that was more delicate? Were there any issues with the supply chain?

Supply chain? I never experienced any difficulties in obtaining spare parts or ‘consumables’ (oil etc).All components and systems as supplied, apart from the engine, were fit for purpose. Of course, as drivers, we had to be aware of things like the searchlight overhanging the side of the hull and so on but overall I wouldn’t say we had to treat anything as ‘delicate’. But don’t forget that the main aim of the driver was to provide a stable platform for the main armament and so one had to fully aware of the limitations of the suspension in relation to the terrain being driven through.

11. What was the maximum distance you covered in a day during deployments or exercises? Did the tank cope well or needed extra maintenance?

This is an interesting question. We used to do regular ‘quick train’ call-out exercises usually in the early hours of the morning which were to practice for an invasion. On these occasions we had to drive from our barracks in Dodesheide through the city of Osnabruck to the Achmer training area and back which I reckon was a total of around 30-miles, all on roads driving flat out. I cannot recall any of our Chieftains ever having a breakdown. On a few occasions on exercise we did long route marches where we would drive on roads for many miles but I cannot recall how far. However, generally our driving activities were on exercise and the distances covered varied considerably from short distances to different mock battle area’s. We never ran out of fuel and never did more than one fuel refill in a day. I only ever had one breakdown, of sorts, that wasn’t down to the engine and that was when I threw a track in a very narrow gulley.

12. The Leyland L60 engine was an issue in early Chieftain models. Could you comment on this? Were the problems solved in the variants you used? Do you think there were alternatives to the L60?

As I mentioned in my introduction I didn’t serve on Chieftain for very long. In 1RTR we had the Mk.3S Chieftains which had the Model 7A version of the L60. Amongst other weaknesses this model of engine had the 2” wide fan belts which kept snapping. The two heavy aluminum fans had ‘sprag clutches’ which meant that when the engine revs died the fans could carry on freely rotating and gradually slowing down. The problem was, especially when driving cross-country, the engine revs were constantly changing and with each acceleration there was a sudden strain on the fan belts. The first modification we experienced was an increase in fan belt width and thickness plus they were ribbed across the width of the belt, now, instead of the belt snapping the fan drive hubs took the strain and started to crack and leak oil. The later mod of making the ribs longitudinal happened after my time but cured the problem. Another problem I experienced was with the engine ‘running away’, in other words the accelerator (fuel injection pump operating mechanism, became locked in one position, this wasn’t remedied in my time but was later. The biggest failure I experienced on a number of occasions’, like so many others, were the failure of one of the cylinder liner seals within the cylinder block. This wasn’t resolved in my short time.

Yes, there were alternatives to the L60. I had to present my tank, 01 FD 26, to the MoD delegation touring Germany to view the problem first hand. To this day I can still see the picture although I was only 20-yrs of age. The Regiment was on the Achmer training area so there was only myself and my tank on the whole of the tank park, something I had never experienced before. The delegation numbered about 20 personnel and consisted of military ‘top brass’, senior officers from the Regiment and ‘civvies’ from the MoD and Leyland. Chieftain was grossly underpowered with a basic rule being for 20bhp/ton which meant the engine should have at least been producing 1,200-1,300bhp instead of it’s miserly 750. I had written to Rolls-Royce to request some information about their range of ‘Eagle’ marine diesel engines. When I was asked what I thought was wrong with the engine I replied ‘the MoD gave the job to Leyland instead of R-R who produce the Eagle range of marine diesels and I feel certain the smallest of these could be adapted to fit Chieftain’. I don’t what the Israeli’s did with their two Chieftains, if anything, but their experience with Centurion would have given them plenty of experience and knowledge with what to do as an alternative to the L60.

13. One of the theoretical advantages of the Leyland L60 was that it was multifuel. Did you ever use this feature in training or manoeuvres? Is there any procedure that needs to be followed if different fuels are used (clean filters, purge components)?

Although I was a driving and maintenance instructor we didn’t cover changing over to any fuel other  than diesel.

14. Chieftain used a Horstmann suspension, while other tanks of its era used torsion bars. What is your opinion on its advantages and disadvantages?

I didn’t like the Hostmann suspension as I felt that Chieftain was too heavy for it. Having said that it did perform well but it did limit your driving in certain conditions bearing in mind the main armament. However, one advantage of this type of suspension was its reliability and ease of maintenance/replacement. I never rode in a tank with torsion bars but saw various tanks with that type of suspension moving and was generally impressed. The only disadvantage of torsion bars that I can think of is the increased height of the vehicle necessary to fit it.

15. What was the maximum speed you managed to get in a Chieftain? And in reverse?

No idea about reverse but 30mph in top gear (6th) on the road.

16. Did you practise NBC situations? What was the approach? How did it affect the crew performance (especially loader)?

We did often practice for NBC warfare. There was no warning and we had to wear our ‘noddy’ suits for up to 24-hours. It was difficult driving Chieftain ‘closed down’ wearing a respirator but we appreciated that if it was for real then we could cope. It wasn’t too difficult to do your job just ‘different’. I never loaded the main gun but I reckon that would be hard and hot work even though we were fit.

17. Some Chieftain tanks were deployed in Berlin. Did you consider urban scenarios in your training?

No, open combat only plus I didn’t crew a tank in Berlin.

18. Did you have the opportunity to train with other countries (NATO for example)? What was your impression about their training and equipment? Any tank (or other weapon) you liked or disliked?

Yes, we trained with the Germans, Americans and Danes. The equipment of all three was good and modern. We were not impressed with our American friends as they didn’t operate in a skilful and professional manner, it was as if it was all a game to the ones we trained with. However, had Ivan crossed the border I am certain that their performance would have given Ivan something to think about.

19. What is your opinion on turbines and autoloaders? These devices were introduced in the 1970s by other tanks (T-80 and Abrams).

I don’t have enough technical knowledge or experience of gas turbines or auto-loaders. I can see the benefit of an auto-loader in that you can have a more rapid rate of fire but the downside being, of course, a limited amount of ready rounds of the required ammunition type. It may also, I presume, be able to load and unload an auto-loader stock by bulk? I am impressed with the M1 Abrams gas turbine other than with its fuel economy.
20. Do you think Chieftain could have been developed more or it was better to move into the Challenger series?

I was extremely impressed when I saw Khalid being demonstrated. Suddenly Chieftain, in the form of Khalid, had excellent firepower and performance but the protection was sadly lacking. The additional turret armour fitted to Chieftain was always a stop-gap solution and not ideal and so, in my opinion, I believe that Chieftain had virtually reached the limits of its development potential and Chally 2 (not 1, which was 95% Chieftain) was definitely the way forward.

The interviews section relies on veterans and people related to the defense industry who gave up some time for the blog. If you are a veteran (active or retired), serve in the military, or you have worked in the defence industry, and would like to get interviewed leave me a message.

Tuesday 17 August 2021

Il-112V prototype crashes outside Moscow

A few minutes ago the Ilyushin Il-112V prototype crashed outside Moscow. The reasons for the accident are not know but one of the engines was on fire when it crashed. Sadly there are no survivors; the crew was composed of
 
- Pilot: Nikolay Kuimov
- Co-pilot: Dmitry Komarov
- Navigator: Nikolay Khludeev



 
This aircraft first flew in March 2019, and had completed 15 flights (Appendix 1) by the time of the accident. It has been designed to replace Russia’s fleet of An-26, the Yakovlev Yak-40

Appendix 1: Il-112V prototype flight history
 

1) 30-3-2019
2) 30-3-2021
3) 4-4-2021
4 y 5) 6-4-2021
6) 27-5-2021
7) 14-7-2021
8) 17-7-2021
9) 17-7-2021
10) 3-8-2021
11) 5-8-2021
12) 7-8-2021
13) 9-8-2021
14) 10-8-2021 (with 2 tons of fuel)
15) 13-8-2021: Flight to Zhukovsky

Saturday 15 May 2021

Interview with a former Chieftain gunner

1. Hello S., many thanks for accepting an interview for alejandro-8en.blogspot.com. Could you provide us an overview of your career in the British Army?

I joined British army at the tender age of 16 ½ in 1984 under the long established Junior Leaders System. This takes younger soldiers and trains them over an extended period (in my case 15 months) with a view to them being well prepared to become Non Commissioned Officers when they have served the required time at their Regiment.

In my case I had completed the recruiting process and been offered a place in The Blues and Royals which was then an MBT Regiment based in Detmold in Germany as part of the British Army of the Rhine. As an armoured crewman I trained initially at the Junior Leaders Regiment Royal Armoured Corps. Then based in Stanley Barracks Bovington situated directly opposite the well known Bovington Tank Museum.

The training  was comprehensive and I emerged out of the other end of it as a  Chieftain Gunner, having completed basic training in all aspects of soldiering coupled with  signalling and  a full 120mm gunnery course. This included all aspects of maintenance of the weapon, the coaxial GPMG (FN Mag/M240), Commanders MG, loading, and live firing which was conducted at the nearby Lulworth ranges.

I joined my Regiment in Germany where I served two years on Chieftain, before we converted to Challenger and moved to Sennelager a posting that I do not recommend. This was at the height of the Cold War and all our annual training cycles were geared towards meeting the threat of a large Soviet Warsaw Pact Armoured thrust into Europe.

As the 90s approached and the Warsaw Pact disintegrated we were rotated back to Windsor in England where we converted to the CVRT family of vehicles as a Formation Reconnaissance Regiment. I was to spend the next ten years on these vehicles over time crewing every type except the Swingfire missile equipped Striker and the Samaritan ambulance. I took these light effective vehicles all over the world including exercises in Canada, Egypt, and three operational tours of Bosnia as part of the UN and later NATO.

2. What do you think were the strong and weak points of the Chieftain tanks?

I have a very soft spot for Chieftain as my first mount but I am not blind to its faults. It will not be a shock to most when I say that it’s engine was a source of real trouble to us crews. Not only for its unreliability but to work on some aspects of it (the gearbox for example) required the removal of large parts of the exhaust system. We were very confident of the 120mm rifled guns ability to take on Soviet vehicles, and we believed that we were well armoured. We were comfortable on the vehicle its  ergonomics were excellent for the time, though we could have done with a heater for those German winters! What many people tend to overlook when they criticise Chieftain is the job it was designed to do. In the British sector our role was to fight a defensive battle to but time to initiate the reinforcement operations from the US and elsewhere.

We would fight while withdrawing onto out logistical supply chain in a series of delaying actions. The Germans plans were always if possible to launch a spoiling attack and then thrust into East Germany hence the Leopards 1 & 2, I think the Americans were planning a combination of both defending the Fulda Gap but also taking early offensive action hence the M1.

3. When training, at was the typical distance to the objective and speed of the tank when you fired? And the longest distance at which you ever fired?

We conducted yearly two week firing camps at the Bergen Hohne NATO range complex. These started with static single vehicle engagements working up to the whole troop advancing to contact down lanes engaging a range of targets presented. These were timed and marked for accuracy and standards had to be met for the Regiment to pass the training. The whole process was highly competitive and reputations were made and lost. Infantry targets were engaged around 800m generally though 1100m was the maximum. Armoured vehicle targets were engaged usually up to 2500m though again the weapon was capable of longer range hits this was considered unrealistic in a European scenario. The Chieftains stabiliser was not particularly advanced and it took a skilled gunner to hit targets on the move at all but the closest range.

In this phase of training 10-15mph and the driver would get a kick if he changed gear at the wrong time! I do not recall the longest range that I fired at but I suspect it would have been with HESH which we did train to use on what we called High Elipse shoots almost as artillery. I once watched a crew of Gunnery Instructors demonstrate a HESH shoot at 6000m on an old bunker.

4. How was the night firing conducted? Did you use flares for battlefield illumination? At what sort of ranges could you fire with the IR projector? How did the thermal sight improved night fighting?

Night firing was a problem at this time for Chieftain crews. The Mark 9s that we used had no real night fighting capability beyond an illuminated graticle! We were forbidden to use the searchlights either in IR or white light mode. Any night firing would have been done in conjunction with artillery or mortar illumination, but I do not recall practising this. It was a great relief when Challenger arrived with its thermal Gunnery sight.  

5. Early Chieftain variants used a ranging gun to measure distance to objective. Did you ever use it? If so, did you find it effective? Were you concerned about losing sight of tracers or confusing them with others during a battle?

The ranging guns had long gone when I arrived at the Regiment and the apertures welded over. A few of the senior NCOs had used them but I seldom heard any comment beyond how heavy they were to carry from the armoury to the tank park.

6. Chieftain kept a rifled gun while other models introduced smoothbore guns. Do you think it was a good idea?

At the time we believed (what we were told!) That our rifled gun was the most accurate hard hitting weapon in the world. The internet did not exist and most data on other systems was not freely available. Remember at this time the M1 only had the L7 105mm gun as did most of NATO apart from Leopard 2 coming into service we did not have much to compare it to. We were confident that APFSDS would do the job and DU even more so.

7. Chieftain tanks use a human autoloader and 2 piece ammunition. What was the maximum rate of fire you achieved? How did it change as you used the different ammunition bins?

A slight correction to your question our ammunition was technically three piece consisting of the Round, the propellant bag charge, and the Vent Tube (imagine a .50 case without the bullet). The latter was fired into the bag charge to initiate firing and fed into the breech block from a ten round magazine. We believed (again as we were told) that it was a safer system with WW2 being pointed to as the basis for this. We were well drilled, the loaders usually being more experienced crew members (new recruits starting as drivers or gunners). A good crew could crank out a round every four seconds, this would obviously slow as ready rounds were used up but firing over the frontal arc gave good access these. Not for nothing did the loaders get a sweat on during firing.

8. British Army made extensive use of HESH ammunition. Can you comment on its characteristics and performance?

Not for nothing does the rest of the world view the British love affair with HESH with amusement. Whilst I was on Chieftain in the late 80s it was still regarded as a useful round against light armour and transport targets. We were aware that it’s thin casing did not fragment as effectively as true HE rounds. Today far more modern and effective general purpose rounds have rendered it mostly obsolete. It is however still an effective round in built up areas. A friend who served with distinction as a Scimitar troop commander in Afghanistan lamented to me that he greatly missed his old Scorpion which he believed would have been far more effective against hard packed compound walls than high velocity 30mm rounds.

9. What was the typical ammunition configuration load (% APDS/HESH/Smoke)?

I’m struggling to remember the exact number of rounds that we carried as the stowage was altered during my time with the change from APDS as the main anti armour round to APFSDS but we carried 36 Fin rounds and around 30 HESH/Smoke. Though we would only carry two smoke if any. The mix could be altered on a mission basis as you could fit two HESH propellant charge’s in a standard stowage bin but only one Fin charge. These bins were surrounded by water jackets in Chieftain but these were changed to Armoured bins in Challenger.

10. In terms of maintenance, was there any component or system that was more delicate? Were there any issues with the supply chain?

I really do not recall any system that gave us particular trouble besides the engine. The gun control equipment was robust, as were the radios and other systems. The hatches leaked water like sieves, how it would ever have been regarded as CBRN proof is beyond me! As for spare parts as with anything to do with the British Army there is never any money. If we damaged anything through negligence then we would be expected to pay the whole cost for cheaper items or a percentage for expensive stuff. This made us careful. The stores for replacement parts was overseen by a fearsome old Captain. You had better have a good story ready to get anything out of him.

11. What was the maximum distance you covered in a day during deployments or exercises? Did the tank cope well or needed extra maintenance?

We deployed any real distance by rail or tank transporters. On the larger Reforger type exercises in Germany we might cover 20km a day, less when tactical training on Soltau. I do recall once carrying out a Regimental Road march of 60km. It was carnage, my vehicle broke down 4km from home. I waited hours for a recovery vehicle. Such moves were very hard on the running gear and we would lose track pads and rubber off our road wheels. Every time we halted all drivers would be out checking hubs, track pins and tightening road wheel bolts.

12. The Leyland L60 engine was an issue in early Chieftain models. Were the problems solved in the variants you used?


The later engines were better. I was lucky to have a recently Base overhauled vehicle in my last Troop (these were completely stripped to a bare hull and rebuilt with all new systems and modifications ), it never let us down. The more frequently the vehicles were used the more reliable they became. Parking them up for weeks at a time caused many problems such as seal failures.

13. One of the theoretical advantages of the Leyland L60 was that it was multifuel. Did you ever use this feature in training or manoeuvres? Is there any procedure that needs to be followed if different fuels are used (clean filters, purge components)?

No the multifuel option was never used at all. In fact considering that the multifuel capability was a NATO stipulation we were the only idiots that tried to use it!

14. Chieftain used a Horstmann suspension, while other tanks of its era used torsion bars. What is your opinion on its advantages and disadvantages?

The Horstman suspension worked well, although I remember it was very noisy compared to Challengers hydrogas. My Squadron had an American Major Commanding on an exchange and he believed Chieftain to be superior cross country to the M60. I never had to replace one myself but the spring packs within the Horstman units did  break occasionally and could be a real pain to replace as they were under pressure. If the retaining bolts were damaged then they would need to be cut with oxyacetylene torches. It payed not to be near the spring when it came free.

15. What was the maximum speed you managed to get in a Chieftain? And in reverse?

I was not a driver. I did move them around the tank park and occasionally drove them on exercises for short periods. I think 25mph was about tops though it would get to that speed quickly. In reverse I do not know. I do remember that on our local driver training area the West German Leo crews liked to cruise past us backwards when we were going forwards as fast as we could……

16. Did you practise NBC situations? What was the approach? How did it affect the crew performance (especially loader)?

NBC was a very important part of our training it was considered a major threat from the Warsaw Pact. Everything that we did we did in NBC kit. When we deployed on exercise our suits went on, when we drove back into the camp at the end we took them off. We dug trenches in it, we deployed chemical warning sentries with Nerve agent detecting devices, we put detector papers on our vehicle hatches which were activated by training agents and we had to react as if it was a real attack. We had days where we had to work the whole day on the vehicle park in respirators to practice maintenance in them. We were tested every year on our suit and mask drills with CS gas. Lastly we fired serials at Gunnery camp wearing the kit. I actually found it easier to fire using the secondary battle telescope sight wearing a respirator because I could get the lens closer than with the binocular IFCS sight.

17. Some Chieftain tanks were deployed in Berlin. Did you consider urban scenarios in your training?

We did not have the specialised urban training facilities in Germany at the time like we used later in England on Salisbury Plain (ironically when this was built it was modelled on a German town in layout and building style). We trained in built up areas in the larger field training exercises but never in cities. Tactics and camouflage was practised and hessian camouflage painted to resemble bricks was carried by our command vehicles. We did deploy our D Squadron to Berlin to allow the 14/20th Hussars Squadron a period to carry out training on the Gunnery ranges at Hohne. They took their own Chieftains in standard camouflage. But did use the time to practice city fighting.

18. Did you have the opportunity to train with other countries (NATO for example)? What was your impression about their training and equipment? Any tank (or other weapon) you liked or disliked?

We all had our own areas of responsibility so whilst we trained alongside our NATO allies we did not integrate regularly to any great extent. I was lucky to have an American Exchange officer Commanding my Squadron. He was far from the easy going Yank I was expecting! He was highly professional, very demanding, and held very high standards. I was very impressed. I felt he had an edge on some of our own  more “Cavalry type” officers. He arranged an exchange program so I went on a couple of exercises (including a border deployment) with  Bravo Troop 1/11 ACR in Fulda. The also sent a couple of M1s and M3 Bradley’s to cross train at-our Gunnery camp. I found them to be far more modern vehicles than Chieftain, the fire control system was very advanced with its integrated thermal sight and they could fire far more accurately on the move than us. They still had the L7 105mm gun at this point. Their Gunnery training simulators were also far more advanced than our analog ones. In the mid 90s I did do a Squadron Exchange with a Spanish Cavalry Regiment 14 Alamansa (Forgive me if  my spelling or unit designation is incorrect) in Leon. We were very impressed with the VEC and it’s Weapon system, less impressed with the M47, but we had a great time even though it rained most of the time. We were well looked after and were looking forward to hosting your Countrymen in return at Windsor however your government cancelled the visit on the grounds of cost sadly.

19. Chieftain was operated by other countries (Oman, Kuwait, Iran). Did you get any feedback from their use or reports from combat experiences?

I do not remember getting any real time feedback on Chieftains performance in the Iran/Iraq war. This did not filter down to us until many years later. The lessons were obviously taken on board because the fitting of the  Stillbrew armour package were as a direct result of a British military team being given access to captured and damaged vehicles by (ironically) Saddam Hussain.

20. Did you receive intelligence on potential threats (T-72, AT missiles)? If so, how accurate was it once you got access to the weapon?

We were given statistical facts and figures (ranges etc) on Warsaw Pact equipment and we were taught recognition at all levels. A friend of mine actually crewed a T-72 trial vehicle which the British government had “acquired” he was very impressed by it indeed. It’s simplicity and rugged design. We were always confident that we were the match for T64/72 series vehicles especially with Challenger but T-80 was an unknown quantity to us then.

21. What is your opinion on turbines and autoloaders? These devices were introduced in the 1970s by other tanks (T-80 and Abrams).

We were fed the age old lines about Soviet era autoloaders, that they had a tendency to try and feed the gunners arm  into the breech, and also that follow up shots were difficult because the gun had to elevate of target to reload. I was very sceptical of them for many years. After all and extra crewman helped with maintenance, guard, and in British crews cooked the food. As time has gone on I see how efficient they have become and I feel as calibers increase they will become essential. I was actually part of a vehicle trial program to study the feasibility of two man crews in a modified Warrior vehicle (google the VERDI 2 program).

Gas turbines I am less sold on. Crewing an Abrams the unit literally had a fuel tanker following it and the M1 were filled up whenever they stopped. That kind of logistic support is quite difficult for anyone without an  American style infrastructure. I would be interested to see how the Egyptians coped in any conflict.

22. Vickers developed more advanced variants of Chieftain that were never bought by the British Army (Khalid). Did you have a chance to familiarise yourself with them?

No. I only ever saw these in photos and museums. We used to dream about having the Khalids powerpack.

23. Do you think Chieftain could have been developed more or it was better to move into the Challenger series?

If you had ever been inside a Chieftain you would have seen the issue with any future development. Any updates were literally shoehorned into every space. The gunner actually sat on top of the fire control computer (they were huge in those days). I never crewed the Stillbrew Chieftain with the TOGs thermal sights but I can imagine that they were just bolted onto the existing systems.

Chieftain had reached the end of its development. Without a new engine and radical redesign it would have been pointless. This was an expensive waste with Challenger waiting in the wings as a stopgap until Challenger 2 came into service which was the true planned Chieftain replacement.






Other interviews:

- AMX30 commander of the Army of France
- NCO of the Army of Serbia 
- Former crew member of Challenger 2
Former Leclerc commander
T-72 driver in Czech Army  
- US Army M60 tank crewmman
- Interview with D., former US Army tanker with experience in the M60 and M1 Abrams
- Interview with Stefan Kotsch, former NVA/Bundeswehr tanker  

More interviews can be found in the Spanish version of the blog (link), including veterans of Leo 2, AMX30, M48/60 and REME.

I am always looking for more veterans, active members or people related with the defence industry to accept interviews. If you enjoyed reading the material and would be happy to accept an anonimous interview you can get in contact with me. My e-mail can be found in this link at the heading. Otherwise leave a message in the comment sections.